A Critical Appraisal of the Impact of Diversity on Idea generation

A Critical Appraisal of the Impact of Diversity on Idea Generation
Student ID: UoW 20478933
Word Count: 18,917 (Introduction to Conclusion and Recommendation)
A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Master
of Business Administration
(Supervisor: Professor Anthony Bendel)
London School of Business and Management (LSBM ®)
Dilke House
1 Malet Street
London
UK
WC1E 7JN
www.lsbm.org.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 207 078 8840
Fax: +44 (0) 207 636 7291
Reg. in England & Wales
No. GB4511191
I
I M P A C T O F D I V E R S I T Y O N I D E A G E N E R A T I O N Page 1

Declaration/Statements
DECLARATION
This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being
concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree.
Signed ...DURO-ISHOLA mOTUNRAYO.... (candidate)
Date .....18/09/2011.......
STATEMENT 1
This work is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. Where correction
services have been used, the extent and nature of the correction is clearly marked in a
footnote(s).
Other sources are acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit references. A bibliography is
appended.
Signed .....DURO-ISHOLA MOTUNRAYO........ (candidate)
Date ......18/09/2011........
I

STATEMENT 2
I hereby give consent for my work, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library
loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations.
Signed ........DURO-ISHOLA MOTUNRAYO........ (candidate)
Date .....18/09/2011........
NB: Candidates on whose behalf a bar on access has been approved by the University (see Note 7),
should use the following version of Statement 2:
I hereby give consent for my work, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library
loans after expiry of a bar on access approved by the University.
Signed ..................................................................... (candidate)
Date ........................................................................
I

Abstract
The concept of diversity has been a subject area for researchers for decades past and this has
produced a lot of research work into different aspects of diversity, majorly the surface level
diversity, like culture, gender, ethnicity, age, but on the other hand there has not been to many
empirically backed research studies into the deep level diversities, like cognitive and personality
diversity. At the same time the concept of innovation has been considered more from a holistic
point of view, without recourse to the different aspects that make up innovation.
This piece of research has attempted to look at the impact that cognitive and personality diversity
could have on an aspect on innovation, which is idea generation. This was done through the
process of electronically administered questionnaires and case scenario. The questionnaire was
made up of three sections to gather data on the personality, cognitive and management approaches
employed by respondents in their work places. The case scenario was to help generate idea, so
that the data from the questionnaire could be juxtaposed against the ideas generated.
The findings/results from the research showed that there was a relationship between the diversities
in question and the ideas generated. It was found out that certain influencing factors played
differing roles on these diversities, that determined whether the impact of the diversities were
either positive or negative.
Key Words: Diversity, cognitive diversity, personality diversity, innovation and idea generation
I

Acknowledgement
I am grateful to God, for his enabling grace and mercies throughout the course of my MBA study,
culminating in this dissertation. He has been faithful to me throughout.
My sincere appreciation goes to my supervisor, Professor Anthony Bendel, whose push,
encouragement and a taste for quality piece of work has been a form of inspiration throughout
the dissertation process. I hope his direction and guidance has paid off and this piece of research
reflects such quality.
To my beloved parents, Mr (Late) & Mrs. A. B. Duro-Ishola, I say thank you for giving me such
quality education and for your support throughout the whole MBA process. I wish my dad (who
died less than a month to submitting my dissertation) were alive at this point to see the end of
the whole process. But to my mum, your worth is truly beyond words. Thank you for your love.
Oyenikemi, you have truly shown virtues needed during this dissertation. Your smiles and what
we share have kept me going. The future would reveal your true worth. God bless you love!
To my siblings and friends, thank you for your trust, time and resources towards me.
To all the participants of and respondents to this research, I say thank you, as it would not have
been possible without you all.
Thank you all.
I

CONTENTS of DISSERTATION
Declaration 2
Abstract 3
Acknowledgements 5
Contents of Dissertation 6
List of Figures 10
List of Tables 10
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 11
1.1 Research Topic 11
1.2 Purpose of Study 11
1.3 Aims and Objective 12
1.4 Outline of the Research 13
1.5 Introduction of Research and Purpose of Research 13
1.6 Limitations of the Research 14
1.7 Why the Research Topic? 15
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 16
2.1. Innovation and Diversity 16
2.2 Defining Diversity and Innovation 16
2.2.1 Diversity: A General Overview 16
2.2.2 Definition of Diversity 17
2.2.3 Personality and Cognitive Diversity: Specific Overviews to Diversity 18
I

2.2.4 Personality Diversity 18
2.2.5 Cognitive Diversity 20
2.3 Innovation: A General Overview 21
2.3.1 Idea Generation: A Specific Overview of an Integral Part of Innovation 23
2.3.2 Idea Generation: Individual and Team Perspectives 24
2.3.3 Theories of Idea Generation at the Individual and Team Levels 25
2.4 The Impact of Personality and Cognitive Diversity on Idea Generation 25
2.4.1 Personality Diversity on Idea Generation: The Impact 26
2.4.2 Personality Diversity on Idea Generation: Impact on the Team 27
2.4.3 Complementary and Supplementary Models and the Impact on the Team 28
2.4.4 Personality Diversity on Idea generation: Impact on the Individual 29
2.4.5 Universal, Contingent and Configurational Approaches: Impact on the
Individual 30
2.4.6 Cognitive Diversity on Idea Generation: The Impact 31
2.4.7 Cognitive Diversity on Idea Generation: The Impact on the Team 31
2.4.8 Cognitive Diversity on Idea Generation: The Impact on the Individual 33
2.5 Diversity Management Approaches 34
2.6 Summary of Literature Review 35
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 35
3.1 Methodology 35
3.2 Research Philosophy 35
3.2.1 Positivism 36
3.2.2 Interpretivism 37
I

3.2.3 Realism 37
3.3 Research Approach 38
3.3.1 Deductive Approach 38
3.3.2 Inductive Approach 38
3.4 Research Strategies 38
3.4.1 Quantitative Strategies 39
3.4.2 Qualitative Strategies 39
3.5 Strategies 39
3.6 Research Ethics 39
3.7 Research Methodology for this Research 40
3.7.1 The Research Philosophy 40
3.7.2 The Research Approach 40
3.7.3 The Research Strategy 41
3.7.4 The Research Design 41
3.7.5 The Research Hypothesis 42
3.8 Data Collection Method 42
3.8.1 Participants 42
3.8.3 Cognitive Diversity 43
3.8.4 Task and Measures 44
3.8.5 Methods of Data Analysis 44
3.8.6 Reliability and Validity 44
3.8.7 Ethical Consideration 45
I

3.8.8 Limitations of the Survey 45
Chapter 4: RESULTS 46
4.1 Introduction 46
4.2 Demographics 46
4.2.2 Personality 1 – Openness 47
4.2.3 Personality 2 – Conscientiousness 50
4.2.4 Personality 3 – Extraversion 54
4.2.5 Personality 4 – Agreeableness 57
4.2.6 Personality 5 – Neurotism (Negative Emotionality) 60
4.3 Section 2 – Additional Information 63
4.4 Section 3 – Diversity Management Approaches 67
4.5 Cognitive Diversity 70
4.6 Ideas Generated 71
Chapter 5: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 73
Chapter 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 87
I

List of Figures
Figure 3.1 - Research process
Figure 4.1 - Frequency of ‘I am resourceful’
Figure 4.2 - Frequency of ‘I am an inventive person’
Figure 4.3 - Frequency of ‘I tend to be open minded’
Figure 4.4 - Frequency of ‘I am generally not so imaginative’
Figure 4.5 - Frequency of ‘I am quite detached’
Figure 4.6 - Frequency of ‘I tend to be single-minded’
Figure 4.7 - Frequency of ‘I am a competent person’
Figure 4.8 - Frequency of ‘I am achievement oriented’
Figure 4.9 - Frequency of ‘I am a self-disciplined person’
Figure 4.10 - Frequency of ‘I could be quite frivolous’
Figure 4.11 - Frequency of ‘I am a carefree person’
Figure 4.12 - Frequency of ‘I tend to be dis-organised’
Figure 4.13 - Frequency of ‘I am gregarious’
Figure 4.14 - Frequency of ‘I am warm-hearted’
Figure 4.15 - Frequency of ‘I tend to be positive-minded’
Figure 4.16 - Frequency of ‘I am a quiet person’
Figure 4.17 - Frequency of ‘I am quite reserved’
Figure 4.18 - Frequency of ‘I am self-conscious’
Figure 4.19 - Frequency of ‘I easily trust (trusting)’
Figure 4.20 - Frequency of ‘I do not mince words (straight-forward)’
Figure 4.21 - Frequency of ‘I follow rules’
Figure 4.22 - Frequency of ‘I am easily oppositional’
Figure 4.23 - Frequency of ‘I could be quite quarrelsome’
I

Figure 4.24 - Frequency of ‘I am unfeeling (insensitive)’
Figure 4.25 - Frequency of ‘I am self-conscious’
Figure 4.26 - Frequency of ‘I easily get anxious’
Figure 4.27 - Frequency of ‘I am easily discouraged (depressed)’
Figure 4.28 - Frequency of ‘I am usually relaxed (calm)’
Figure 4.29 - Frequency of ‘I am easily contented (satisfied)’
Figure 4.30 - Frequency of ‘I am self-assured (self-confident, bold)’
Figure 4.31 - Frequency for ‘In total for how long have you been at the profession?’
Figure 4.32 - Frequency for ‘Prior to this research, have you worked using electronic brainstorming?’
Figure 4.33 - Frequency of ‘The Electronic brainstorming helped me in generating ideas towards solving
Figure 4.34 - Frequency for ‘What level of degree do you have?’
Figure 4.35 - Frequency for ‘I have a growing desire for new forms of knowledge’
Figure 4.36 - Frequency for ‘In my previous team work, the knowledge base of the members of the team
helped in generating ideas towards solving the task’
Figure 4.37 - Frequency for ‘Does your organisation have a diversity management policy known to you?
Figure 4.38 - Frequency for ‘The diversity management policy of my organisation effectively manages
the cognitive diversities within the organisation’
Figure 4.39 - Frequency for ‘The diversity management policy of my organisation effectively manages
the personality diversities within the organisation’
Figure 4.40 - Frequency for ‘Would you recommend a separate diversity management approach for
personality diversity within an organisation?’
Figure 4.41 - Frequency for ‘Would you recommend a separate diversity management approach for
cognitive diversity within an organisation?’
Figure 4.42 - Frequency for ‘Personality (Openness or Conscientiousness or Extraversion or
Agreeableness or Neurotism)’
Figure 4.43 - Frequency of cognitive ability categorisation into, low, average and high
Figure 4.44 - Frequency of ideas generated
I

List of Tables
Table 5.1: Reliability Statistics for Ideas Generated and Cognitive Diversity
Table 5.2: Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Ideas Generated and Cognitive Diversity
Table 5.3: Correlations
Table 5.4: Reliability Statistics for Ideas Generated and Cognitive Diversity
Table 5.5: Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Ideas Generated and Cognitive Diversity
I

Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 RESEARCH TOPIC
‘A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE IMPACT OF DIVERSITY ON IDEA GENERATION
WITHIN AN ORGANISATION’
1.2 INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH AND PURPOSE OF STUDY
Most previous researches into diversity had been done by looking at the diversity concept as a
whole and as a result sending out a message as if its impact is always the same, whatever the
aspect of diversity you are considering it from. Another aspect of diversity has been where
researchers have focused a great deal on the demographic (surface-level) divide of diversity,
thereby also sending out a message as if the impact made by surface level diversity is ever the
same with that of deep-level diversity.
Resent researches have attempted to establish otherwise, which is one of the aim of this research,
that is, to look into diversity with specific attention to personality and cognitive diversity and its
impact.
The same approach seem to have been going on with regard to innovation, with past researches
looking at the concept of innovation as a whole, without considering it as a process which begins
with idea generation, and as a result trying to apply general findings on innovation to all the
specific aspects of innovation.
Therefore this research purposes to look into the specific areas of diversity, that is, personality and
cognitive diversity together with the specific aspect of innovation which is idea generation and
subsequently attempt to look at the impact personality and cognitive diversity would have on idea
generation.
In attempting to achieve the above, there will be a slight focus on possible influencers on
personality and cognitive diversity and that of idea generation, such as, years of experience, levels
I

of academic degree acquired, professional degrees obtained and whether there has been previous
experience with electronic brainstorming, among others.
This would be rounded up with a look at possible diversity management approaches employed by
employees and whether there is the need of any recommendation towards having specific diversity
management approaches to handle the specificity of the impact that personality and cognitive
diversity have on idea generation.
In an attempt to bring together secondary and primary data, respondents would be sourced through
a systematic sampling system out of a large sample from a social networking site. The
respondent/participants would have at least an undergraduate degree, working presently or was
recently employed, as a requirement after which they would be presented with a personality test
questionnaire to determine their traits.
Simultaneously they would be asked to voluntarily do a critical reasoning ability test to help
determine as closely possible, their cognitive ability, which will help in the creation of the diverse
group needed for a hypothetical case scenario they would be required to solve through suggested
ideas.
The research then looks at the impact that personality and cognitive diversities play on its idea
generation process, the influences in the process and the diversity management approaches
employed by employees at managing such.
1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH
The objectives of this research are to critically answer the following:
1. Identify the presence of personality and cognitive diversity that exist as part of diversity
within an organisation
2. Examine the impact of personality and cognitive diversity on an organizations ability to
generate ideas
3. Identify some influencing factors on the diversities in question, which are personality and
cognitive diversity, both internal and external influencers
I

4. Identify possible personality and cognitive management approaches employed by
employees in managing these diversities
5. Identify how the organizations can harness the impact of personality and cognitive
diversity to help it in idea generation
1.4 OUTLINE OF THE RESEARCH
Chapter 1: Introduction
This section gives an introduction into the research work, which aims to give the reader an
informed background into the research as a whole. It also will contain the discussion of the
problem the thesis attempts to proffer answers to. Also entailed in this section will be the aim and
objectives of the research been carried out and introduction of the participants in the research
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The review of existing and relevant literature will be contained in the section of the research. This
will involve an in-depth and critical analysis of literature that exists in the area of diversity and
how it impacts on an organizations ability to innovate through idea generation as put forward by
authors, researchers and academics. This section will aim to critically consider the impact of
diversity on personality and cognitive diversity. This will be linked with how it impacts on how an
organization generates ideas as part of an innovation value chain (Hansen and Birkinshaw, 2007)
and possible influencers of the impact.
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
This section introduces the methods that will be used in gathering all the primary data to be
critically subject to analysis and interpretation. The section would also attempt to justify why the
chosen methods of data collection were suitable for the achievement of the aims and objectives
already set earlier in the research and the research design. Also contained here will be the way in
which the data will be collected and how ethical guidelines will be adhered to.
Chapter 4: Results
This section will critically look into the data collected from the participants and findings from
such data collection methods. There will also be an in-depth presentation and interpretation of the
I

data collected from the respondents, represented with tables, figures and diagrams. These findings
and results will help in the conclusions to be submitted.
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion
This will also contain the juxtaposition of both the secondary sources critically presented in
chapter 2 and finding from the primary data presented in chapter 4. This will be in an attempt at
answering the research questions presented above in a logical and analytical sequence.
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendation
This section will be the conclusion and also an attempt to present recommendations that are
deducible from the research work.
1.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH
One of the limitations of the research is that there has not been much research into the aspects of
diversity which is the focus of this research, which made availability and access to research
materials quite difficult and there had to be a lot of reading in between the different literature
available. This was further heightened by the fact that this research focused on deep level
diversities, cognitive and personality and specific aspect of innovation, idea generation.
Another limitation of the research is the act that access to organisations were not granted as most
organisation were sensitive to issues of diversity, thereby prompting a recourse to sourcing for
information solely from employees through an electronic process using a social networking site,
facebook to source for respondents.
I

1.7 WHY THE RESEARCH TOPIC?
The growing interest in idea generation stems from an innate desire to develop businesses,
through developing ideas and concepts for businesses. The desire to pursue this aspect of
business development was as a result of a growing frustration while working as a Law
Graduate Trainee at my first place of employment a few years back.
While working on a law report for a case I was preparing for the principal of the firm, I
suddenly did an in-depth analysis of my life and concluded I was not enjoying sitting
behind a computer in a law firm and sorting through some law reports. At that point, I put
pen to paper and started writing down what would later become my dream for a business
development outfit and how what the business will entail. Upon concluding what I was
writing, I discovered there was an excitement of the beginning of the process of fulfilment
of a dream.
This dream led me to decide to get involved more in the business side of law (soliciting)
rather than mere litigation. This ultimately led to my working as an in-house lawyer and
property lawyer in a strictly commercial/property law firm. What followed after this was
to get a formal educational training related to business development, which led me to
Nottingham Trent International College.
Having already done a mini project at Nottingham Trent International College, on ‘Factors
Necessary for a Successful Multicultural Workplace’ in a Graduate Diploma Course, the
curiosity arose as to the impact of diversity in general and particular areas of diversity like,
personality, intelligence, cognitive differences to an organization achieving its set
objectives.
The concept of idea generation resulted from an innate interest at developing business
related ideas, that are marketable and also appealing to the customer. It was while studying
for the MBA, particularly while in the Managing Innovation class, that the discovery of
Idea Generation as part of innovation began to unfold. I eventually got settled on the
concept while reading an article on innovation value chain and for me that was the
beginning of living out the dream.
I

Chapter Two
Literature Review
2.1 INNOVATION AND DIVERSITY
The relationship that exists between the concepts of innovation and diversity is a particularly
difficult one to ascertain and this difficulty is heightened by the facts that they are multi
dimensional terms and a lack of definition by the Equality Act on the concept of diversity.
Different sources have attempted to proffer definitions to both concepts but it is noted that
there is no universally acceptable definition of either of the concepts. There will therefore be
an attempt to give a broad applicable definition through defining key terms within its contexts
and how diversity, with particular categories of diversity like, demographic and cognitive
differences, impact on and affect innovation in general and idea generation in particular.
2.2 Defining Diversity and Innovation
2.2.1 Diversity: A General Overview
Globalisation has brought about two major challenges for organisations to attend to. The first
has to do with their workforce becoming increasingly diverse in terms of ethnicity and
nationality (Schneider & Northcraft, 1999) as well as in relation to skills, cognitive differences
and personalities (DE Dreu, Bechtoldt and Nijstad, 2007). Secondly, is the increased level of
competitiveness that has led to a decrease in product life cycle, thereby driving the
organisations to deepen and increase the level of innovativeness in other to create or sustain its
competitive advantage (DE Dreu, Bechtoldt and Nijstad, 2007).
The differences that exist in the concepts of diversity and innovation have particularly made it
difficult at ascertaining the relationship between them and as a result the impact that diversity
has on innovation in general and its different categories, like idea generation, in particular.
Diversity as a concept has been viewed from both a legal and policy viewpoint as well as from
substantive and constitutive approaches (Konrad et al, 2006). This has also been done by
researchers through demographic/non-cognitive viewpoints, which are also referred to as
surface-level diversity (Jackson & Joshi, 2004; William & Barsade, 1998; William & o’Reilly,
1998) and the cognitive viewpoint, also referred to as deep-level diversity (Ancona &
Caldwell, 1992; Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).
I

The demographic viewpoints have centred on categories such as race, ethnicity, age, gender,
sexual orientation, and disability, while the cognitive aspects have focused on such areas such
as personality, intelligence, skills (educational and professional) and expertise.
There has however been a focus on both the deep and surface level diversity together by some
researchers, rather than researching into them separately (De Dreu & Homan, 2004; West,
Hirst, Richter & Shipton, 2004; Harrison, Price, Gavin & Florey, 2002)
2.2.2 Definition of Diversity
Researchers as well as businesses have over time made attempts at defining diversity, with the
understanding that a well defined concept results in a well understood concept.
Diversity to an organisation like McDonalds means, “Understanding, recognising and valuing
the differences that make each person unique” (Harris, 2009). This definition falls short of the
specificity of which category of diversity it refers to, whether demographic or cognitive, by
leaving it wide open but by leaving it wide open, gives room for other forms of not so obvious
diversity to be incorporated and integrated into their business and organisational operations.
For Procter and Gamble, diversity is “the uniqueness each of us brings to fulfilling these
values and achieving these goals” (Swasy, 1994). This definition brings out the factor of
diversity as a serving agent to positively impact on both individual and organisational goals
and objectives through the expression of individual differences. In reality, this may be down to
how the organisation effectively manages the diversity present within its business concern.
According to the annual report of Barclays, 2010 as it relates to diversity and inclusion, it
recognises that Barclays “operates across the globe and engages with employees across a
wealth of diverse and rich cultures. Our mission is to create a truly inclusive environment
through ensuring that we treat people fairly and value diversity”. To Barclays, it is a mission
that is aimed at inclusion and creating an enabling environment where diversity flourishes,
thereby leading to the achievement of other organisational aims and objectives. To Barclays,
diversity is a ‘means to an end’, a strategy.
To an organisation like HSBC, it is “the source of opportunity.... appreciation of the rich
mosaic of differences within the workforce fuels group dynamics and helps create an
environment where teams can perform to their full potential” (HSBC, 2010).
I

Diversity, like a chameleon, comes under differing guises in an attempt at defining it (Ragins
& Gonzalez, 2003). It is referred to as a “subjective phenomenon” (DE Dreu, Bechtoldt and
Nijstad, 2007).
According to Konrad et al (2006) the “the concept of diversity is all about matters of
difference and inclusion”. The authors also went further to state that, diversity “is the
collective amount of differences among members within a social unit”. This definition brings
out the idea of inclusiveness as imperative to defining diversity and ‘directly signals diversity
as a collective construct’.
Jackson et al (1992) defined diversity as “the presence of differences among members of a
social unit”. O’Reilly, Williams & Barsade, 1998 opined that, “A group is diverse if it is
composed of individuals who differ on a characteristic on which they base their own social
identity”. The above definitions stress the important characteristic of “differences” as a key
element of the concept of diversity.
For some researchers, attempts at defining diversity have resulted in the definition of its
management approach.
Wentling (2000) sees this as, “specific activities, programs, policies and any other formal
processes or efforts designed to promote organisational culture change related to diversity”.
Irrespective of the differences that may be present in attempts by researchers to proffering
definitions to diversity, Konrad et al (2006), encourages researchers to “stay within the realm
of demographics, skills, abilities, cognitive styles, perpetual orientations, personality
dimensions, values, attitudes and beliefs ...”
2.2.3 Personality and Cognitive Diversity: Specific Overviews to Diversity
The concept of diversity is multi-dimensional and has many sides to it and as a result one
would not do justice to our understanding of the richness of diversity until we look at the
different sides to the concept. The focus here would be two of such differences, namely,
personality and cognitive diversity.
2.2.4 Personality Diversity
The business world and the industries within which such businesses operate is becoming not
just a highly competitive environment but more importantly an increasingly innovative one.
I

Organisations have to become and stay innovative in an attempt to keep up with the changing
economic/business environment as well as staying ahead of its competitors if it wants to keep
and increase its presence in the market.
To keep up with these changes is becoming more challenging and demanding than ever. As a
result, how business is done is being affected. Individual job roles are constantly been
replaced with team centred roles and structures on one hand and an amalgamation of both
individual and team centred roles on the other hand (Devine, Clayton, Philips, Dunford &
Melner, 1999). This has also been referred to as a change in the use of teams (Sundstrom,
1999).
Organisations as a result are now becoming team based, diverse and it is no longer just about
finding an individual to perform a specific role or task but to amalgamate individuals with
specific uniqueness and attributes (De Dreu, Bechtoldt & Nijstad, 2007). Among this specific
attributes and uniqueness is the personality and cognitive ability of both the individual
members of the team and that of the team as a unit.
According to Rollinson, 2008, among other differences that people are identified with are
diversities in personality and cognitive differences. The author defined personality as “ those
relatively stable and enduring aspects of an individual that distinguishes him/her from other
people and at the same time form a basis for our prediction concerning his/her future
behaviour”. This behaviour surfaces during individual interactions within the office setting or
within the setup of a team in the process of achieving specific well defined tasks and
objectives, like the generation of ideas.
Pervin, 1980 sees the concept of personality as an individual uniqueness which has a relatively
predictable set or mode of thinking, actions and reactions to his or her social strata of
relationship or involvement. The level of predictability appears to be dropping as there are
increasing factors acting as influencers, like the task at hand.
The degree of the differences in personality present in a group depends to an extent on how
diverse the group or team is. The team on one hand is made up of individuals with varying
personality differences and on the other hand, the culmination of the individual personality
differences makes up the personality of the team as a unit.
When looking at personality assessment in a bid to understanding the concept, whether from
an individual or team perspective, there has always been a reliance on traits and the most
I

appropriate approach in terms of how many traits are needed to provide a detailed assessment
of the personality (Rollinson, 2008).
Eysenck, 1991, had a preference for the four trait approach to personality types but the most
widely accepted and followed has been the five trait approach, referred to as the ‘Big Five’ by
Digman, 1990. The ‘Big Five’ according to Rollinson, 2008 are not personality types but
mainly “clusters of personality traits”. The Big Five personality traits are,
Openness – Explorers versus Preservers
Conscientiousness – Focused versus Flexible
Extroversion – Extrovert versus Introvert
Agreeableness – Adapter versus Challenger
Negative Emotionality (Neuroticism) – Reactive versus Resilient (Rollinson,
2008 p.84)
Each of the personality traits has different variance as it relates to the degree of each trait to
the other. An example given by Poling, Woehr, Arciniega and Gorman, 2004, was that, the
more disperse the personality traits, the more diverse the team is likely to be. According to
Poling, Woehr, Arciniega and Gorman, 2004, a variance among the extrovert trait could range
from a highly extroverted member of the team, to a slight extrovert, slight introvert and down
to a highly introverted member.
These variances apply to the other personality traits as well. According to Barrick et.al, 1998,
this variance is “appropriate when researchers seek to understand the relationship of team
composition homogeneity to team process and team outcomes”. This outcome, which refers to
the purpose for which the team was set up, involves such goal as the generation of ideas.
2.2.5 Cognitive Diversity
Cognitive ability is the bedrock upon which cognitive diversity rests. According to Devine &
Philips, 2001, cognitive ability is “the capacity to understand complex ideas, learn from
experience, reason, problem solve and adapt”.
A cognitive difference refers to a form of deep-level diversity that may exist among
individuals in a team. Cognitive ability and differences could be looked at from both an
I

individual and team/group point of view. Cognitive diversity has to do with abilities,
knowledge and skill differences within a team or group (De Dreu, Bechtoldt & Nijstad, 2007).
2.3 Innovation: A General Overview
It appears that following the economic down turn of 2008 and its continuous ripple effect on
organisations and business concerns, the idea of innovation is no longer a business suggestion
but a strategy that needs to be incorporated and integrated into every facet of its businesses. It
has become both an organisational and business strategy, necessary to remain and maintain a
competitive advantage in a fiercely competitive market.
According to Flint et al (2005), innovation is “critical to the success of many firms” and the
global financial and economic situation in the world has made it critical not only to many but
to every organisation serious about maintaining competitiveness.
The concept of innovation is a universally applicable strategy that is not restricted to
technological or product breakthroughs, as this can occur and thus occur in other sectors and
aspects of business, such as processes/operations, logistics and services (Schumpeter, 1934,
Flint et al., 2005).
According to the report financed by the European Community Programme for Employment
and Social Solidarity (2007-2013) aimed at supporting the implementation of the objectives of
the European Union in the employment and social affairs area, Innovation ... is “a
multidimensional term, displaying ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ traits”.
According to the report, the subjective traits of innovation has to do with processes which are
involved in part towards creativity and original thinking, as well as the communication of such
creativity and thinking to others and the implementation of such ideas by others. This assertion
reiterates the opinion made by Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007), which they referred to as
Innovation Value Chain.
On the objective side to innovation, it refers to the structures through which such ideas are
generated and transmitted.
According to the above report, Innovation is defined as, “the generation and introduction of
new ideas, which lead to the development of new products and services, processes and
systems in all areas of business activity”.
I

According to Rogers, 1995, “Innovation is an idea, practice or object that is perceived as new
to the world or other unit of adoption”.
Innovation can be either internally or externally focused. It is internally focused if it affects
directly or indirectly an organisations internal mode of operation, irrespective of the
department. Innovation is externally focused if it is one that affects the customer directly or
indirectly (Flint et al, 2005). In the business world and based on the relationship that exists
between an organisation and its stakeholders, the distinction between internal and external
focused innovation is not so easily distinctive, as they are mutually exclusive.
Innovation can also be incremental or radical. According to Kahn, 2001, in between radical
and incremental innovation is what he called “middle space” innovations. Christensen &
Overdorf, 2001, calls it sustaining and disruptive innovation.
Sustaining innovation otherwise known as evolutional innovation suggests an improvement to
what is presently obtainable, while disruptive innovation also known as revolutionary
innovation suggests a complete departure from what is presently obtainable (Christensen &
Overdorf, 2001).
The point standing out from the two definitions above is that, whatever the stage in the process
of innovation, the ultimate aim has to be better performance, which could come through either
inventing a completely new phenomenon or refurbishing an already existing one.
Beyond the concept of innovation itself within organisations and businesses, of much more
particular concern is the path that led or leads to it, which is referred to as processes. Though
the processes employed at innovating may differ from organisation to organisation as well as
from business to business which further complicates the innovation processes, the core
principle remain the same and this has always been of concern to management at all levels
(Flint et al, 2005).
The processes involved in idea generation refer to “the pattern of interaction, coordination,
communication, communication and decision making (that) employees use to transform
resources into products and services of greater worth” (Christensen & Overdorf, 2001).
Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007) refer to these processes as the ‘Innovation value chain’ (IVC).
To Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007), idea generation is the beginning of the Innovation Value
Chain process. For the purpose of this research, the focus would be on idea generation.
I

2.3.1 Idea Generation: Overview of an Integral part of Innovation
Idea generation is the beginning point on the path to innovation. Idea generation is an
‘innovation’ on its own. Plainly put, it is the process of generating idea towards contributing to
the overall innovation process. Without the stage of generating ideas, the goal of innovating
becomes a mirage, without any substance to it.
In organisations, different departments come together to meet on issues and challenges facing
the organisation in different aspects and the aim of such meeting is to share and generate
knowledge through different perspectives in a bid to develop solutions to such challenges
(Sutton & Hargadon, 1996).
Different approaches are employed by organisations in the bid to generate innovative ideas
towards proffering solutions to such challenges, like the use of computer networks (Straus,
1996), brainstorming (Osborn, 1957), Delphi (Dalkey, 1969), nominal group technique (NGT)
(Van de Ven & Delbecq, 1971, 1974), brainwriting (Paulus & Yang, 2000), and issue-based
information system (IBIS) (Yakemovic & Conklin, 1990) but whatever the means employed
in generating such idea, what matters is the generation and subsequent exchange of ideas by
members at the meeting (Janis & Mann, 1977).
Idea generation according to Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007) involves three links namely,
“collaboration within units, collaboration across units and collaboration with outside
parties”.
Ljunberg and Larsson (2001) presents an input/output perspective to innovation process as “a
repetitively used network of orderly linked activities using information and resources for
transforming ‘object in’ into ‘object out’, extending from the point of identification to that of
the satisfaction of the customer’s needs “.
Every organisation has within its organisational setup, processes through which it achieves its
aims and objectives (Flint et al, 2005). Whether this processes lead to innovation would
depend on an organisations knowledge of innovation as a process not a state (Hansen and
Birkinshaw, 2007).
According to Flint et al, 2005, the challenge for organisations and businesses rests in the
ability or inability to identify, develop and manage effectively, innovation enhancing
processes. The presence or otherwise of these innovation enhancing processes could mean the
I

difference between successfully generating ideas towards replicating innovations on one hand
and reducing misinterpretation of such processes resulting in aborted innovations, thereby
killing the idea generated or yet to be generated, on the other hand (Ljunberg and Larsson,
2001).
Perspectives on the issue of the innovation processes differ in nomenclature, but the concept
of managing such innovation process is agreed as quite complicated (Flint et al,
2005).Normative approaches at managing such processes that lead to innovation have evolved
from different researchers (Cobbenhagen, 2000, Khan, 2001) among others.
In an attempt at identifying idea generation processes that eventually results in its
classification as part of the innovation process, Hansen and Birkinshaw, 2007, opined the need
to ascertain the channel through which the organisation seeks to generate such successful
innovative ideas.
To effectively achieve the goal of idea generation towards dealing with an organisational
challenge, there is the need for an ‘organisational/business analysis’ to identify where its
capability (ies) lie (Christensen & Overdorf, 2001). This involves looking at its
a. Resources,
b. Processes, and
c. Value
For the purpose of this project, attention will only be given to the tangible aspect of resources
relating to people within the organisation, that is the employees. This will be considered both
on an individual and team level.
2.3.2 Idea Generation: Individual and Team Perspectives
In an effort to enhance organisations ability at generating ideas, there has been a turn towards
team based work systems but not neglecting individually based work systems (Mohrman,
Cohen & Mohrman, 1995). This is in an attempt at encouraging idea generation leading to
innovation both in individuals and teams within the organisation (Pirola-Merlo and Mann,
2004).
Efforts by researchers have directed their focus either to the contributions of team processes
(Bain, Mann & Pirola-Merlo, 2001), or on the level of interaction between group processes
I

and member contributions (Taggar, 2002) or on the individual contributions of members of a
team. Due to the fact that these researches have focused on individual capacities in generating
ideas or innovating, there have been limitations at applying such outcomes to relationships at
the team level (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
2.3.3 Theories on Idea generation at the Individual and Team levels
The concept of creativity has been used synonymously by researchers with idea generation.
Though some researchers attempt to differentiate the terms creativity and innovation (which
involves idea generation), the ‘popular use of the terms does not necessarily adhere to these
definitions’ (Pirola-Merlo and Mann, 2004). According to West, 1997, creativity is the
development of new ideas.
Researchers that have focused on idea generation and creativity as part of the innovation
process, have done so looking at the micro or macro approaches differently without attempting
to link both. Theoretical advancements have and are been made by researchers along this line
in an attempt at linking both the micro and the macro levels with the workplace environment
and intra-individual components (Pirola-Merlo and Mann, 2004).
One of such attempts at linking this was Ford’s (1996) Theory of Creative individual Action,
which linked the work environment with individual factors in order to proffer an explanation
to an individual’s ability to generate ideas.
Another important theory was Amabile’s (1988, 1997) Componential Model of Organisational
Innovation, which attempted to link contextual factors with intra-individual factors. The three
intra-individual components of this Model are (a) Organisational motivation to innovate (b)
Resources, and (c) Management practices.
Ford’s (1996) Theory of Creative Individual Action tends to conceptually overlap with the
components of Amabile’s (1988, 1997) model. The components are knowledge and ability,
sense making and motivation (Pirola-Merlo and Mann, 2004).
According to West, 1990, for innovation to thrive, there must be four team climate factors,
namely
1. Shared vision to a clear objective
I

2. Participative Safety, that is team members participation in sharing ideas without fear of
ridicule and in decision making (Pirola-Merlo and Mann, 2004)
3. Task Orientation, and
4. Support for Innovation
These factors have successfully predicted creative/innovative outcomes in some empirical
studies (Bain et al., 2001; Birmingham & West, 1995; Agrell & Gustafson, 1994).
West’s team climate model is “modelled as impacting on group outcomes but not necessarily
via individuals and individual outcomes”, which is why its results is treated as single levelled
(Pirola-Merlo and Mann, 2004). Worthy of note however is that, West’s (1990) model
recognises that through “shared experiences team climate emerges from shared perceptions of
the team’s environment by team members” (Pirola-Merlo and Mann, 2004).
2.4 THE IMPACT OF PERSONALITY AND COGNITIVE DIVERSITY ON
IDEA GENERATION
Cox, Lobel & McLeod, 1991, suggested that the relationship between the concept of diversity
and innovation may have been based on two suggestions/notions (Justesen, 2001). The first
suggestion/notion was that, the more diversity exists among people, particularly employees,
the more new and novel ideas should result, be it demographic or cognitive. The second
suggestion was that “diverse group members approach the same task from different points of
views; thus, they are more likely to have task-related conflicts. The demand of tackling these
conflicts ... should ensure more high quality and innovative solutions”.
2.4.1 Personality Diversity on Idea Generation: The Impact
The mean and variance in traits associated to personality has an impact on both an individual’s
interpersonal and work-related behaviour and the influence it has on team related processes is
rated as high (De Dreu, Bechtoldt & Nijstad, 2007). According to Moynihan & Peterson,
2001, “Personality has more direct and powerful effects on group processes….
There has been little focus on the impact that personality differences plays among member of
a team, not to refer to the impact of these personality differences in the team as it affects the
innovativeness of the team. Most efforts by researchers have focused on how the personality
I

differences in a team impacts on a team’s performance (Van Vianen & De Dreu, 2001;
Mohammed & Angell, 2003 & De Dreu, Bechtoldt & Nijstad, 2007).
Taggar’s, 2002, on the relationship between generation of ideas (creativity) and the
personality of members of a team appears to be the only research that has attempted this area
of study pre 2002 in specific terms. Other researchers have written on bits and pieces but the
putting together of these bits and pieces will help conjure up the purpose of this research.
As a result of the above, the impact of personality diversity on innovation in general and idea
generation in particular could be seen from both an individual and team perspective and an
understanding of this separation will help in a better grasp of depth of the impact.
2.4.2 Personality Diversity on Idea Generation: Impact on the Team
On the impact of diversity on the outcomes of the team, focus has been more on the surface
level diversities such as age, gender, and ethnicity but on the impact that surface level
diversities have on the outcome or performance of the team, there has been little or no
relationship shown in this respect (Poling, Woehr, Arciniega and Gorman, 2004).
Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998 opined that surface level diversity (demographic diversity) has a
negative impact on a team’s ability to generate ideas and also to subsequently innovate, as this
undermines the ability of the team in group cohesion and as a result the processes that require
high levels of cohesiveness.
The impact that surface-level diversity have on how well a team functions, has been said to be
temporal as well as peaking at the early stages of the team/group existence (Phillips & Loyd,
2006).
Therefore deep level diversity becomes pivotal to determining the achievement of the group’s
outcomes as time progresses and as a result relegating the impact of surface level diversity to
the background (Harrison et al., 2002).
Harrison et al., 2002, refers to deep-level diversity as the not so obvious differences in the
psychological makeup of members in a team, such as their cognitive differences, skills,
intelligence and personality.
I

As a result of the above, researchers such as Bowers, 2000; Milliken and Martin, 1996, were
of the view that very little work and effort has been done into the impact that, deep level
diversity within a team has on the outcomes of the team.
Of note is the fact that when teams effectively manage the creativity of its individual members
and the teams’ relevant processes needed to encourage and enhance such creative individuals
and ideas, the resultant effect would be a more creative team than if it was done otherwise
through a non committal approach to the teams’ relevant creative processes, which will stifle
contributions from creative individuals (De Dreu, Bechtoldt & Nijstad, 2007; Taggar, 2002).
Taggar, 2002, opined that where a team has individuals with a higher personality variableness
in conscientiousness, agreeableness and extroversion, the teams’ creativity as a unit is higher
as well as its processes, although this is based on his use of the universal approach. Moynihan
& Peterson, 2001 positively agree with this opinion but only as it relates to conscientiousness
and agreeableness.
Mohammed & Angel, 2003, brings a variation to the assertion made by Taggar (2002) that, a
team which is high in one end of extroversion may tend to be at a disadvantage of constant
conflict and power tussles and if it tilts to the other end of the extroversion variance, there may
be shyness away from leadership of the team.
This tends to further earlier research, by attempting to find out the mean result of the
personality differences present within a group. It is of importance to ascertain the variance of
such personality differences. This will provide an in-depth finding into the personality traits
present in the group and the impact this has on the teams’ goal of generating ideas.
2.4.3 Complementary and Supplementary Models and its impact on the Team
Neuman et al, 1999, however has been able to work on the two models presented by
Muchinsky and Monahan (1987) to the effect that there appears to be some level of potential
relationship between deep level diversity on a team’s performance and the impact thereof. The
two models were the complementary and supplementary models.
The complementary model draws a conclusion that a higher level of personality diversity
within the team will result in the contribution of certain unique traits to the outcome of the
team. This model suggests and supports the presence of more heterogeneity of personality
traits in the team.
I

The supplementary model on the other hand suggests the homogeneity of personality traits and
as a result, this may result in the a high level of motivation that members of the team have
towards achieving the outcome of the team, whether it is team performance in general or idea
generation in particular (Neuman et al, 1999.)
Thus, the personality diversity present could serve as a moderator on the impact of other traits,
depending on the variance present (Poling, Woehr, Arciniega and Gorman, 2004).
Poling, Woehr, Arciniega and Gorman, 2004 concludes that consistent findings across all the
studies shows that personality diversity trait in extroversion is closely connected and related to
the performance of the team and as a result, leaning more towards the complementary model.
This position is supported by De Dreu, Bechtoldt & Nijstad, 2007 as there is a tendency
towards ‘conformity and social influence’ but as noted by Steiner, 1972, members should be
more at ease to making inputs and to present their ideas to enable the team reach its full
potential and in his words, ‘minimize their production losses’.
2.4.4 Personality Diversity on Idea Generation: Impact on the Individual
One of the criticisms against previous researches into personality composition has been the
fact that too much focus has been put on the mean level approach to personality traits and the
effect this has on outcomes because it fails to appreciate and identify the variations that could
exist in individual personality traits and the potential impact this could have on the team as a
unit and the outcome it sets out to achieve (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
Kozlowski & Klein, 2000 and Chan, 1998, are among the various multilevel theorists who
have endeavoured to come up with approaches to explain how individual variations and
components could collectively have an impact on team as a unit. This impact could have either
a positive or negative result.
Their conclusion as put by De Dreu, Bechtoldt & Nijstad, 2007 was that “they range from
isomorphic composition assuming that higher level property is essentially the same as its
constituent lower level elements, to discontinuous compilation regarding higher level property
as a complex combination of lower level contributions”.
According to the research carried out by Barrick et al., 1998, results reveal that where the
individuals in a team are less diverse in the conscientiousness personality trait, the team is
I

likely to achieve better performance, while in a team whose members are low in agreeableness
there was a tendency towards greater cohesion and communication.
On an in-depth research by McGrath, 1984, individual members of a team who work
separately tend to generate sufficiently more innovative ideas than a team engaged in face-to-
face interaction.
Taggar suggests an approach called “team-creativity relevant processes” where he encourages
that individuals in a team should elevate their goals and ask for the ideas of individuals and
taking a further step to ensure that such ideas are recognised.
2.4.5 Universal, Contingent and Configurational Approach and Impact on the Individual
According to Pirola-Merlo and Mann, 2004, “there has been little attention given to the
relationship between group performance and the individual contribution of members...
because that relationship depends on the nature of the group task and so findings with one
type of group working on a particular type of task cannot be generalized to others”.
As a result of the above, there has been a universal, contingent and configurational approach
to the impact of personality diversity of individual members in a team on the whole innovation
process (Moynihan and Peterson, 2001).
According to the universal approach, personality traits of the individual members of the team
have an impact on the outcome of the team with little or no link to the tasks of the team and its
features or any contextual situation. According to Steiner, 1972, this approach failed to put
into consideration the task of the team. De Dreu, Bechtoldt & Nijstad, 2007, puts it this way
that, “aggregating group members personality based on the mean implies that the task at hand
is additive, i.e. that the group outcome is a result of the summative combination of the
contributions of all group members” (Steiner, 1972).
What then happens if the task set before the team is conjunctive? The implication of this
would be that the outcome of the team would be judged based on the input of the weakest
member of the team. This could be worth considering when analysing the final outcome of the
team, for example, the input of the lowest scoring member of the team in extroversion and the
least engaging and relationally focused member, can be decisive in determining the overall
outcome of the team (Neuman & Wright, 1999). Where the task is a disjunctive one, the
I

overall success of the team is measured by the member of the team with the highest score who
is the most creative individual member (De Dreu, Bechtoldt & Nijstad, 2007).
The contingent approach considers the personality of the members of the team as a single
contribution into the whole outcome of the team and that a variable such as the task of the
team, which is the basis of the universal approach or any other variables, are separate entities
standing alone and making a unique contribution of its own (De Dreu, Bechtoldt & Nijstad,
2007).
The advantage of the contingent approach comes in handy when the individual members of
the team have differently allocated tasks to carry out, which will finally be pulled together as
the outcome of the team. So this leaves room for better analysing, say for example, two
separate individuals who though may have the same score on a particular personality variance,
but to come up with a balanced analysis, the difference in task would play a pivotal role on the
impact the difference in task has on the role played by the personality trait.
The most appropriate and accepted approach to the issue of personality diversity and the
impact of the individual composition of the team has been said to be the configurational
approach, as it considers both the variances in personality traits and its distribution within the
team, plus the variation in other variables within the team, like the tasks of the individual
members. As a result the variances in personality traits and other possible variables
represented in the team would have to be considered when analysing the outcome (De Dreu,
Bechtoldt & Nijstad, 2007).
Research findings have shown to reveal that all three approaches have different roles to play in
issues relating to personality as a diversity but as it relates to idea generation, both the
universal and configurational approaches would help produce a comprehensive standpoint
with regards to personality diversity, while the contingent approach will help serve as a
moderating element in aspects relating to tasks and its components (Moynihan & Peterson,
2001; De Dreu, Bechtoldt & Nijstad, 2007).
2.4.6 Cognitive Diversity on Idea Generation: The Impact
Idea generation is closely linked with creativity (McGrath, 1984), as well as the cognitive
ability of an individual (Woodman et al., 1993). A further step was made in research to assert
the important role that cognitive ability and diversity plays in idea generation (Mumford and
Gustafson, 1988)
I

The impact of cognitive diversity is multifaceted which has to be considered on an individual
and team basis, to provide for a better understanding of its impact.
2.4.7 Cognitive Diversity on Idea Generation: The Impact on the Team
The positive perspective of the impact of diversity on members of a team as it relates to idea
generation stems from the impact that deep-level diversity has on its members with respect to
its abilities, skills and knowledge (De Dreu, Bechtoldt & Nijstad, 2007).
Justesen, 2001, opined that, a team that is cognitively diverse have a superior standing to a
team that is cognitively homogeneous as it relates to the requirements of innovation like, the
gathering and application of information gathered (Justesen, 2001 & De Dreu, Bechtoldt &
Nijstad, 2007). The superior standing of the cognitively heterogeneous team over a cognitively
homogeneous one is considered from four aspects, namely;
a.) Absorptive capacity
b.) Requisite variety
c.) Network variety; and
d.) Groupthink
According to Cohen & Levinthal, 1990, absorptive capacities have to do with the “ability to
recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it and apply it to commercial
ends”. This point corresponds with the opinion that idea generation involves collaboration for
information not just within a unit or team but also across and outside of units (collaboration
across units and with outside parties) (Hansen and Birkinshaw, 2007).
Cohen & Levinthal, 1990, opined that there is a direct link between an individual’s previous
knowledge and his ability to accept, relate with and maximize new knowledge, which is
important for idea generation. According to Cohen & Levinthal, an individual’s ability to
detect such link between previous and new knowledge, is further enhanced by high absorptive
capacities, which ultimately results in an increase in ideas generated. This implies that where
this is transferred to a team, a cognitively diverse team would have more resources to draw
from in other to effectively generate new ideas, as there will not only be previous knowledge
as a resource base but there will also be an openness to new forms of knowledge and a critical
analysis of such forms of knowledge.
I

Requisite variety is a fall out of high absorptive capacities, relating to the ability of an
organisation to adequately deal with unforeseen incidents requiring innovative strategic
solutions due to the influx of new information into the organisation. Where a team has a high
requisite variety, it would be able to resort to its knowledge and skills resource in other to
proffer innovative ideas to solving its problems (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). This helps the
organisation maximise its latent knowledge to its advantage.
Network variety has to do with the link between higher levels of communication and
information gathering and higher levels of innovation especially in research and development
groups (Kanter, 1988; Tjosvold & McNeely, 1988). This is due to the high level of
communication that has to take place not just within the team but also as it relates to external
collaborations from professionals. Of much importance beyond just the level of
communication is the pattern of communication (Monge, Cozzens & Contractor, 1992;
Hansen and Birkinshaw, 2007). A cognitively diverse team with network variety is likely to
outperform a homogeneous team in idea generation (De Dreu, Bechtoldt & Nijstad, 2007).
Groupthink is defined as “a psychological drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses
dissent and appraisal of alternatives in cohesive decision making groups” (Irvin Janis, 1972).
Though new ideas stem from a continuous questioning and analysis of ongoing practices
which leads to innovation, team members must resist the desire to groupthink, as a cognitively
diverse team should be low in and less prone to the dysfunctionalities associated with group
thinking (De Dreu, Bechtoldt & Nijstad, 2007). The cognitively diverse team should operate
in an atmosphere where diverse opinions and ideas could be aired without any form of
pressure.
2.4.8 Cognitive Diversity on Idea Generation: The Impact on the Individual
Cognitive ability is one of the ways of determining the performance of an individual for the
task of idea generation (Devine & Philips, 2001). According to Morris, 1975, the impact of an
individual and his cognitive ability depends on if the task require only the individuals
knowledge and skill and not the complex social processes associated with group idea
generation and as a result, the individuals competency and skill is the predictor of
effectiveness.
I

Dennis and Valacich, 1999, opined that “ideas generated by an individual member of the
brainstorming group depend on the stimuli and the relative strengths of the individual’s
production rules”, which Anderson, (1983) referred to as cognitive ability.
Based on the absorptive capacity notion of Cohen and Levinthal, 1990, individuals are diverse
in their cognitive capabilities in absorbing existing information and knowledge, which
determines the creation of new knowledge which leads to the generation of new ideas or
otherwise.
Due to the fact that the aim of any team is to produce as many quality ideas as possible, the
impact is that there are bound to be individuals low in cognitive ability and those with high
cognitive ability and according to Devine & Philips, 2001, overall performance of the team in
generating ideas rests on individuals with high cognitive abilities. As a result individuals with
low cognitive ability will likely hide in the group (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). As a result of
the following, “individuals with high cognitive ability will outperform (quantity of and quality
score of high-quality ideas) individuals with low cognitive ability” (Valacich, Jung and
Looney, 2006).
2.5 DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
Harnessing the potential in diversity lie in the identification, recognition and affirmation of
such diversities by not just the organisation but by everyone the organisation represents and
this can be achieved through the strategic concept called inclusion.
Though diversity and inclusion has been referred to as two sides of the same coin (Deo, 2009),
they are actually dependent on one another to work. They are referred to as overlapping
concepts (Roberson, 2006).
Inclusion involves employee involvement and engagement (Roberson, 2006). It is about how
to ensure people within the organisation feel a sense of belonging irrespective of the
personality or cognitive diversities. According to Miller and Kats 2002, there must be a level
of support to achieve this, which must be all inclusive of fellow employees, top management,
the business environment and the organisational as a whole.
How does this impact on personality and cognitive diversity? It does by recognising the uniqueness of
this diversities and coming up with management strategies to ensure its impact on idea generation is
I

positive and that individuals and teams involved in idea generation take on the responsibility of
ensuring this, irrespective of the task endeavour and obvious diversities.
Organisations should seek to implement diversity management policies that promote
inclusiveness (Ryan and Kossek, 2008). These policies should not be viewed as a reaction to
legal requirement or development but it should be as seen as a contributor to good business
practice (Thomas and Ely, 1996).
Any adopted policy intended to effectively manage diversity should be done with the view
that “a more inclusive workplace will make one a more attractive employer” (Avery & Mckay
2006) resulting in a workforce that effectively produces set outcomes even if it is to generate
ideas individually or as a team.
2.6 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature has been able to take a review of different sources of literature on the impact of
personality and cognitive diversity on idea generation. This has been done through an initial
consideration of the general concepts of diversity and innovation. This was done due to the
fact that, personality and cognitive diversity and idea generation are offshoots of diversity and
innovation respectively.
Attempts were also made to look at the impact of personality and cognitive diversity on idea
generation from the views of individual and team contribution and the stand of different
theories as it affects both individuals and teams and the resultant impact.
The above led to identifying possible influences on these diversities and the pivotal and
varying roles they play on idea generation. Diversity management was then briefly considered.
What follows from this in the next chapter would be the sourcing for primary data that serve
as a necessary base for analysis and juxtaposition of the secondary data provided in this
literature review.
I

Chapter Three
Research Methodology
3.1 METHODOLOGY
In other to present findings that are valid and reliable, certain methods had to be employed
in the collection of the primary data. These method(s) have been carefully considered and
chosen based on certain factors to help arrive at a reliable and valid conclusion while
achieving the aims and objectives of the research.
This research methods would afford the researcher the opportunity of working with a
realistic framework, where the outcome of the research will lead not just to a theoretical
endeavour but an applicable one in the business terrain (Gill and Johnson, 1997).
3.2 Research Philosophy
The research philosophy employed by a researcher is influenced by such factors like, the
research topic, aims and objectives to be achieved and the possible biases of the
researcher. Briefly explained below are some of the research philosophies employed by
researchers.
3.2.1 Positivism
The underlying viewpoint of positivism as a research philosophy is the belief that
scientific approach to research is the preferred way to arrive at a reliable and valid research
result and therefore should be objective. This approach is based on the assumption that the
I

society around us and its contents and subjects can be measured because it is a result of
cause and effect and can therefore be subject to a controlled state to ensure a measure can
be carried out.
Positivism holds the view that such unstable factors like the thoughts, opinions and
emotions should be excluded from a research exercise because they cannot be subject to
scientific measurement and therefore should never meet as it has no impact on reality. To
positivism reality is anything that can be measured. To ensure that reliability and
objectivity is achieved, a research work must be measureable and subject to scientific
approaches.
According to Easterby-Smith et al (2008), positivism is based on the facts that, reality is
an external force to the researcher and as a result he should be seen as completely
independent of the entire research exercise and also that reality produces knowledge if the
independence of the researcher would be observed in the research process. He should be as
neutral as possible and must not be impacted by the participants or subjects to the research.
The outcome of this approach to research is to establish universality of its findings.
The universality characteristic of positivism is a major criticism of this approach as it fails
to appreciate the relationship that exist between people, circumstances and the society at
large as this interplay is too complex to be confined to a scientific box.
3.2.2 Interpretivism
Interpretivism is a critical response to the tenets of positivism as it believes that the
researcher cannot be excluded from the entire research exercise being a major participant
on the society he belongs to. Interpretivism opines that to achieve a reliable and valid
result from a research exercise, the researcher needs to be part of the social world that the
participants and subjects of the research belong to otherwise he would not fully understand
its context and as a result (Jankowicz 2005).
One of the underlying tenets of this approach is its subjectivity and it sees no need to
decipher between the researcher and it participants and subjects and their surrounding
world.
3.2.3 Realism
I

Realism is very similar in its approach to the tenets of positivism as it also canvasses for
the use of scientific approach in research exercises to further and better establish the
findings of previous research. It opines that a measurement carried out once or a few times
is not enough to arrive at a universally acceptable conclusion and that in reality there
cannot be a universally acceptable conclusion since previous researches should always be
subject to continuous and new forms of measurement, revealing possible errors and
advancing the course of knowledge, thereby restating the core view that reality is an
independent phenomenon to the researcher (Baker 2003).
There are two existing types of realism, that is, direct and critical realism (Saunders et al
2007).
3.3 Research Approach
There are presently two research approaches applicable to any research endeavour and
they are the Deductive and the Inductive approaches. The choice of which approach to use
should be preceded by an in-depth knowledge and understanding of previous researches
into the research topic or field so that the present research that is being carried out would
be an extension or advancement to the previous body of knowledge (Saunders et al 2007).
3.3.1 Deductive Approach
This approach requires hypothesising on a possible theory developed by the researcher
which forms the basis of the research exercise. Such hypotheses are then subject to tests
based on the strategy developed by the researcher and the result either affirms the theory
or discountenances it.
The deductive approach though involves a large sample but it is not a generally applicable
rule but the strategy employed need to be well structured and scientific (Saunders et al
2007).
3.3.2 Inductive Approach
For the inductive approach to research, the theory comes at the end as a result of the
findings from data collected and analysed by the researcher. It requires an unbiased
approach to the research work and openness to and acceptance of the findings from the
data collected irrespective of what the result would be (Gill and Johnson, 1997)..
3.4 Research Strategies
I

Irrespective of the strategy employed by the researcher in gathering his data, it is classified
as either qualitative or quantitative (Glatthorn, 1998). The researcher should not attempt to
decide at the beginning of the research what strategy he would employ as this is
unconsciously determined as the research exercise progresses and in most research
endeavours it involves a combination of both strategies (Baker, 2003).
3.4.1 Quantitative strategies
Quantitative strategies seeks to affirm the belief that there is a reality which when
researched on can be presented numerically and as a result suits researches that are
experimental in nature and accommodates measurements as part of the process (Glatthorn,
1998).
Quantitative strategies seek to collect relatively large data and attempts to represent and
analyse such data numerically. Quantitative strategies appear to suit positivism and it
includes such methods such as experiments.
3.4.2 Qualitative Strategies
Qualitative strategies are directly opposite to the quantitative strategy. It seeks to explore
the interplay between different phenomena and the depth of the complexities that exists
among such phenomena. Qualitative strategies do not seek to make use of any statistical
methods of data representation as the concern is about the nature of the phenomena and
not about frequencies (Jankowicz, 2005).
The researcher using the qualitative strategy has to be well skilled in his analysis of data
collected because he is seen as subjective and not objective. Qualitative strategies include
such methods as interviews, discussions and observations (Bell, 2008).
3.5 Strategies
Experiment (Bell, 2008)
Survey (Bell, 2008)
Case Study (Easterby- Smith et al 2008)
Action Research (Bell, 2008)
Grounded Theory (Easterby- Smith et al 2008)
I

Ethnography (Bell, 2008)
3.6 Research Ethics
Research ethics in a research exercise determines the credibility and reliability of the
findings or results of that research.
Adherence to the ethics of research exercise would ensure the researcher is held
accountable for his research project and its findings, helping to build trust with all
stakeholders to the research.
Some of such research ethics are the issue of consent and anonymity enjoyed by the
participants of the research, as data can only be collected from participants with their
informed consent and anonymity, which ensures a feeling of safety and co-operation from
the participants (Jankowicz, 2005).
The researcher also need to communicate to the participants all the phases of the research
exercise as this enhances honesty right from the data collection stage down to the result of
the research.
Plagiarism has a zero tolerance rate in the research and academic world. Confidentiality of
information from respondents should be respected.
3.7 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY FOR THIS RESEARCH
The research methodology employed in this research is to enable the researcher collect and
analyse the data involved in making an informed decision. The method(s) are perceived as
the best possible option available to the researcher to help tackle the empirical side of the
research. Since the research is centred on the impact that personality and cognitive
diversity has on idea generation, data would be collected for each of the above and
analysed based on how it impacts on the idea generation process.
3.7.1 The Research Philosophy
The philosophical approach of this research exercise is that of positivism as it seeks to
arrive at a reliable and valid conclusion through the use of experimentation and building of
hypothesis. This research seeks to remove such factors like that are not scientifically
measurable like emotions, thoughts and feelings of participants and focus on such factors
that are quite stable and therefore scientifically measureable and subjectable to scientific
analysis in its build up to proving the reality.
I

The researcher is therefore independent of the research as he attempts to arrive at measure
of universality in the results of the research.
3.7.2 The Research Approach
To be able to achieve the aims and objectives of this research, through the development of
hypothesis to prove or disprove the theory upon which the research is based, the researcher
has employed the deductive approach as it helps the researcher build up from the theory
without known for certain what the outcome of the research would be. The researcher
seeks to find out the impact that diversity, with specific attention given to personality and
cognitive diversities, has on idea generation and as a result a theory is developed and
tested through coming up with hypothesis which are subject to the experimental strategy
and giving of questionnaires.
3.7.3 The Research Strategy
The research strategy employed in the collection of primary data for this research is a
combination of qualitative and qualitative strategy, while the specific strategy is that of
questionnaires and experimentation. This strategy suits this research as it uses the
experimental design as its research design and it aims to analyse data collected
numerically. The questionnaires would be used to identify the categories into which
participants in the research would be put into and this data would be used together with the
results from the cognitive ability tests to eventually experimentally look into its impact on
idea generation. This method affords the researcher to collect an unbiased data and subject
same to unbiased analysis. The respondents would be subjected to an experimental method
involving them attempting to come up with ideas to a problem scenario through an
electronic brainstorming approach and this would be done through an electronic meeting
system. The electronic brainstorming and electronic meeting system is employed due to
the difficulty the researcher encountered in trying to gain access into organisations and the
difficulty of not having access to information that the researcher requires.
3.7.4 The Research Design
This provides a framework for the researcher in collecting primary data for the research.
Though there are various forms of research design, like the case study, cross-sectional
design, longitudinal design and comparative design (Bryman & Bell, 2007), the researcher
has employed the experimental design as its research design.
The research design for this research work would therefore be depicted below
I

Research Topic
Aims and Objectives
Literature Review
Research Methodology (Involving Experimentation, Hypothesis &
questionnaire)
Data Collection
Data Results and Analysis
Conclusion and Recommendation Figure 3.1. Research Process
3.7.5 The Research Hypothesis
A research hypothesis is employed to prove or disprove a theory through the use of
statistical mode of data analysis (Collis and Hussey, 2003). The hypothetical bases of this
research are
Hypotheses 1
H0 - Diversity in team-members self rating of their personality will be negatively related
to idea generation
H1 – Diversity in team-members self rating of their personality will be positively related
to idea generation
Hypothesis 2
H0 – Diversity in team members’ cognitive ability will not have a positive impact on the
number of ideas generated.
H1 – Diversity in team members’ cognitive ability will have a positive impact on the
number of ideas generated.
3.8 DATA COLLECTION METHOD
This section would be divided for easier reference
I

3.8.1 Participants
The eventual participants would be within the range of 50-60 people and would be
carefully selected from a population size of around 200, from a social networking site
(facebook), where there would be parameters in place for the selection of such
participants. The selection process to be used would be the systematic sampling. Such
parameters would include people who are at least first degree holders, have or have had
more than one year working experience in a professional capacity and are either presently
employed or were recently employed in an organisation. They would be people who were
or are presently working to proffer solution to an organisational problem within the
organisation, irrespective of whether it is as part of a intentionally selected team or alone
(as part of an unintentionally selected team). This will be used as criteria to reduce the
number of participants to a sizeable and realistic number. The sex of the participants
would be immaterial in the selection process. An introduction of the research project, the
research strategies to be employed, the personality questionnaire and cognitive ability
‘tests’ to be used, why and what they would be used to analyse against (idea generation)
and what it aims to achieve would be communicated to the around 200 prospective
participants from the networking site, as well as the criterion for selection of the would be
participants and what the participants would be required to do.
Upon selection, the participants would be required to respond to a shortened version of
Goldberg’s (1992) measure of the Big five personality ‘dimensions’ in the form of a
questionnaire. Each personality ‘dimension’ consists of six items (Costa and McCrae,
1992) which in total add up to 30 traits (6 for each personality ‘dimension’). Each of the
six items is then worded into statements which the respondents would be required to
respond to (Self). Each statement is scaled using a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 (strongly
agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The researcher would then use responses to this statements
to determine the personality that each of the respondents is more suited to. Firstly, the
researcher would create a diverse team from the respondents list based on their personality
categorisation and cognitive results and in accordance with the hypothesis set by the
researcher for testing the impact that personality and cognitive diversity has on the ideas
generated, if at all it does. The personality questionnaire was accessed by the respondents
through a survey link provided, which was https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5C7LZM7
I

3.8.3 Cognitive diversity
The participants would be given a set of verbal critical reasoning questions to try and
identify the cognitive ability of each participant. Results from these questions would be
used to get an idea of the cognitive ability level of the participants in the research and this
will also help the researcher with categorising the participants. The results from the
questions together with the personality scale rating results would be used as a two edge
approach to categorise the participants in other to ensure that a diverse personality and
cognitive team is created. The link for the test was
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5C7LZM7
3.8.4 Task and measures
A problem scenario would be presented to the participants to solve. All participant belongs
to a group and every idea suggested by the participant is noted and is subsequently
summated together with that of the other members of the group. The total number of idea
suggested by members of the group would be analysed against the personality and
cognitive diversities of the members of that team in an attempt to deduce the impact this
has on the number of ideas generated. This whole process would be done using an
electronic brainstorming approach and an Electronic Meeting System. The link to the task
was https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/6577KGJ
3.8.5 Methods of Data Analysis
The primary data collected would be analysed using both qualitative and quantitative data
analysis approaches. The most suitable approach for codifying this data would be the
SPSS ‘Statistical Package for Social Science’ (Field, 2005). This would be done using the
Bivariate Correlations with focus on Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient as this would
accommodate more than two variables and allow analysis of these variables against idea
generation. The results from the personality questionnaires, cognitive ability tests and the
experiment on the problem scenario would be analysed using both frequency and
descriptive analysis. The hypothesis would be tested using the Pearson Correlation as
this would help quantify the relationship between the variables as against the quantity of
ideas generated.
3.8.6 Reliability and Validity
I

This has to do with the credibility of the whole research work and its findings (Collis and
Hussey, 2003). It tends to look into the internal consistency in the data collected,
measurement of the data and the findings from such measurements. To ensure the
reliability and validity of the data collected and its measurement and findings, Cronbach’s
Alpha Reliability method will be employed.
3.8.7 Ethical Consideration
To ensure strict compliance is adhered to throughout this research, the confidentiality of
information provided by the participants were assured and there was anonymity of the
participants throughout the research. The researcher and participants signed a consent form
detailing information on the research duly given to the participants and room for questions
were available to them. Personal details were not sourced for and the rights of the
participants to withdraw at any stage of the research were made know to them.
3.8.8 Limitations of the Survey
a. One of the limitations was the fact that the samples for the participants were
sourced through a social networking site, which in itself raises a question of
possible bias.
b. Though other variables like, levels of degree, professional qualification, years of
working experience were recognized in the survey, focus was mainly given to
personality and cognitive diversity on idea generation. The impact of these other
variables identified would have had an impact on the ideas generated.
c. The mode of conducting the research was electronic throughout the whole process,
making use of electronic brainstorming and Electronic Meeting System. Due to the
shortcomings associated with brainstorming in general and using the electronic
method all through, the process may have had both a direct and indirect impact on
the participants which would have translated to the ideas generated. One of such
impact could be the variance between participants already used to and conversant
with electronic brainstorming and the Electronic Meeting System as against
participants who are relatively novel to the concept and approach.
I

d. Respondent may answer the questions based on what is desired rather than what
presently best describes them, as people naturally tend to be positive in the self
description of themselves.
Chapter Four
Results
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter is about the outcome of the primary data collected from the respondents. This
data was collected through an electronically administered questionnaire over a period of
31days and also through a response to a case scenario, where they were required to generate
ideas to the case scenario. Of the 81 people who showed interest in participating in the
research process, only about 65 actually filled the questionnaire. Of the 65 who filled the
questionnaire, 22 of the questionnaires were deleted due to significantly incomplete responses
to the questionnaire questions, which would have made data analysis significantly difficult and
impossible to carry out.
Therefore in total, the overall respondents to the electronically administered questionnaires
and who went further to participate in the case scenario that would be experimented upon and
analysed came up to 43.
4.2 DEMOGRAPHICS
To accurately analyse the primary data received from the respondents/participants, it would be
necessary to lay out the characteristics under which the data would be presented and
subsequently analysed in the next chapter. The data collected from respondents/participants
related to personality traits and cognitive ability, general questions about the respondents to
enable the researcher identify possible influencers that could have played a role in determining
the outcome of the research and diversity management approaches employed by employees in
managing personality and cognitive diversity as well as their recommendations.
I

The personality section was to help determine the personality trait that best defines each
respondent. A multi-item scale was developed for each of the five (5) personality types
comprising of 6 statements per personality, thereby making up a total of 30 statements. The 30
statements were presented to each respondent with a Likert response format using a five-point
scale from 5 “Strongly Agree” to 1 “Strongly Disagree” (see appendix 1).
4.2.2 PERSONALITY 1 - OPENESS
Figure 4.1: frequency of ‘I am resourceful’
For the first statement under personality 1, 55.8% of the respondents ‘strongly agree’ with the
statement, ‘I am resourceful’. Hierarchically, this is followed by a response of 37.2% ‘Agreeing’
with the statement. This is followed by 7% ‘Not sure’, ‘Strongly disagree’ and ‘Disagree’
recorded nil (see Table 1 in the Appendix).
I

Figure 4.2: frequency of ‘I am an inventive person’
For the statement ‘I am an inventive person, 55.8% agreed with 2.3% of the respondents
disagreeing. ‘Strongly disagree’ returned nil, with 34.9% of the respondents strongly agreeing and
7% not sure. Of the 43 respondents to this statement, none skipped it (see Table 2 in Appendix).
Figure 4.3: frequency of ‘I tend to be open minded’
51.2% of the respondents agree to being open minded as opposed to no respondents either
disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. 14% (6 respondents) were not sure as to being open minded.
34.9%, which were 15 respondents strongly agreed to be open minded (see Table 3 in Appendix).
I

Figure 4.4: frequency of ‘I am generally not so imaginative’
24 of the 43 respondents disagreed with the statement above, with 13 amounting to 30.2% going
further to strongly disagreeing. With just 1 (2.3%) not sure of the statement, 4.7% (2 respondents)
strongly agreed and 7% (3) agreed that they are generally not so imaginative (see Table 4 in
Appendix).
Figure 4.5: frequency of ‘I am quite detached’
Of the 43 respondents to this survey, 41 responded to the statement above and 2 skipping it
altogether. Most of the 41 respondents, precisely 23, disagreed with the statement ‘I am quite
I

detached’. Though 10 of the respondents were not sure, 7 (17.1%) agreed and 1 (2.4%) strongly
agreed. This gives a total response rate of 95.3% (see Table 5 in Appendix).
Figure 4.6: frequency of ‘I tend to be single-minded’
With the statement ‘I tend to be single minded’, only 3 (7%) respondents strongly agreed and 11
(25.6%) agreeing. With 10 (23.3%) respondents not sure, majority of the respondents either
disagreed or strongly disagreed, with 41.9% and 2.3% respectively (see Table 6 in Appendix)
4.2.3 PERSONALITY 2 - CONSCIENTOUSNESS
I

Figure 4.7: frequency of ‘I am a competent person’
With none of the respondents skipping the statement, responses were divided only between two
answer options, namely, strongly agree and agree. 58.1% (25) strongly agreed and 41.9% (18)
agreed (see Table 7 in Appendix).
Figure 4.8: frequency of ‘I am achievement oriented’
With the exception of 7% of the respondents not sure, the remaining 40 were either agreeing
(41.9%) or strongly agreeing (51.2%) (see Table 8 in Appendix).
I

Figure 4.9: frequency of ‘I am a self-disciplined person’
To the statement ‘I am a self-disciplined person’, 55.8% (24) of the respondents agreed, with
32.6% strongly agreeing. 5 respondents were not sure (see Table 9 in Appendix).
Figure 4.10: frequency of ‘I could be quite frivolous’
A high number of the respondents, 13 responded as not sure to the statement above and 18 and 2
disagreeing and strongly disagreeing respectively. Agree and strongly agree split the remaining 10
responses as 9 and 1 respectively (see Table 10 in Appendix).
I

Figure 4.11: frequency of ‘I am a carefree person’
22 (52.4%) of the respondents disagreed with being carefree people and 6 respondents going
further to strongly disagree. Though 4 were not sure, 21.4% agreed, with just 1 (2.4%) strongly
agreeing (see Table 11 in Appendix).
Figure 4.12: frequency of ‘I tend to be dis-organised’
With none of the respondents agreeing with the statement, 23 disagreed with 8 also strongly
disagreeing. Just 10 and 2 of the respondents agreed and were not sure respectively. None of the
respondents skipped the statement (see Table 12 in Appendix).
I

4.2.4 PERSONALITY 3 - EXTRAVERSION
Figure 4.13: frequency of ‘I am gregarious’
With none of the respondents skipping the statement, responses were split among the first four, as
none strongly disagreed. 24 respondents agreed to being gregarious and 9 strongly agreeing. Just 6
of the 43 respondents responded as not sure (see Table 13 in Appendix).
Figure 4.14: frequency of ‘I am warm-hearted’
I

48.8% of the respondents agreed to being warm-hearted and 18 strongly agreeing. 3 of the
respondents were disagreed with just 1 responding as not sure (see Table 14 in Appendix).
Figure 4.15: frequency of ‘I tend to be positive-minded’
With none of the respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing, the 43 responses tilted majorly
towards either agreeing or strongly agreeing. 25 and 16 agreed and strongly disagreed
respectively, with just 2 respondents not sure (see Table 15 in Appendix).
Figure 4.16: frequency of ‘I am a quiet person’
I

15 of the respondents disagreed to being quiet people, 1 strongly disagreeing and 10 responding as
not sure. With the former amounting to majority of the responses, 14 and 3 agreed or disagreed
respectively. Only 1 (2.3%) strongly disagreed (see Table 16 in Appendix).
Figure 4.17:
frequency of ‘I am
quite reserved’
55.8% (24) of the respondents agreed to being quite reserved and 3 (7%) strongly agreeing. 10 of
the respondents did not agree, amounting to23.3% of the respondents (see Table 17 in Appendix).
I

Figure 4.18: frequency of ‘I am self-conscious’
Majority of the respondents disagreed; amounting to 48.8%, while 18.6%, 20.9% and 11.6%
responding as not sure, agreeing and strongly agreeing respectively (see Table 18 in Appendix).
4.2.5 PERSONALITY 4 - AGREEABLENESS
Figure 4.19: frequency of ‘I easily trust (trusting)’
21 of the 43 respondents agree as being easily trusting, with 23.3% strongly agreeing. Though
none of the respondents strongly disagree, 4 (9.3%) disagree with the statement with 8 (18.6%) of
the respondents not sure (see Table 19 in Appendix).
I

A Critical Appraisal of the Impact of Diversity on Idea generation

A Critical Appraisal of the Impact of Diversity on Idea generation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Critical Appraisal of the Impact of Diversity on Idea generation

Similar to A Critical Appraisal of the Impact of Diversity on Idea generation (20)

A Critical Appraisal of the Impact of Diversity on Idea generation